Well, unfortunately we don't live in an idealized world, because that would be how the world should work according to you. I expect things to usually be practical, if a method reaches a desired result that can be repeated, then it would most likely see much use. The majority of people don't do things that don't work.
If a detective came under the conclusion that a white man committed a murder, I'm pretty sure he would know who he is with a fitting description. He uses it practically, AKA White male, approx 6', brown this, scars here, etc... He won't profile every white male because of that, just the ones fitting that description.
I can't say what the policies are for the FBI on hiring people, but it might be safe to say their profiling goes beyond looking at their religious creed. For example they might check known associates, places lived, basically a thorough background check that is going to make it unlikely that the applicant is there to do damage. The fact that he is a Muslim would merely be a red flag, not a determining factor in attaining a job.
I argued that prejudice is justified for saving lives in certain professions, not that prejudice as a whole is justified because of one instance that did good.
Well Nazi Germany took human lives where the instance of prejudice I produced saved lives, so it is a bad comparison as you are comparing lives and scientific research which are subjectively unequal.
From the point of view of America, anything is necessary to protect the rights and lives of its citizens. It may be possible to defend against terrorism in other ways, but why don't you try and brainstorm a solution that wouldn't inconvenience the majority. As prejudice was the smart and practical way to protect, and one that only inconvenienced the minority.
Everything I think of is something that could prevent it, but would piss off a whole lot of people and would be way too expensive.
Of course scientists don't agree 100% of the time. It is common to show scrutiny in the scientific community to find a better and accurate understanding of things. Both Neil and Bill are correct from their perspectives. From space, meteors plunge into the Earth where as from Earth's perspective, it can enter the atmosphere in a way that looks like it is going up relative to your position.
Well, the way the question is phrased, "Is it a right," not, "Should it be a right," I think we can come up with specific answers to certain societies. In America, it unfortunately is not a right but a privilege that is from the private sector, not the government. Would I love free health care? Sure, but where is that money going to come from? Want to increase taxes, that won't go well with people. Want to appropriate funds from a different program, well that won't go well with the people who put it there.
After all that though, if we did have free health care and everyone had access to it, will there be problems that arise? Well, it is a well known fact that a lot of doctors from out of the country move to America to do their job as they get paid more. Would the government even maintain those 6 figure salaries? That is a big reason why most doctors work here in America. If they did, how much would it cost us? Well to put it into perspective, there is about 970,000 doctors in the US. Lets say they all get paid on average around 100k. Just their salaries alone would cost the government 97 billion dollars, and I'm being generous on my average. Then you factor in maintaining and building hospital facilities, treatment, care, medicine, materials, and everything, then it comes to about 936 billion in healthcare spending per year, according to cms.gov National Health Expenditure report. That's more than our defense budget spent in 2014, which is about 614 billion.
So you have a lot of people saying that we spend too much on military, well we will be spending WAY too much on healthcare. Government run healthcare will reduce the quality immensely in order to cut down the cost, they just won't be able to provide the same stellar care as the private sector. Want the best health care in the world, then you will find it in America.
Oh, and I almost forgot about the wait list, but that is something I'm not sure I have a full understanding of. From what I have heard, in nations with socialized healthcare, people who need treatment are put on a waiting list that could last up to a few months. That is due to the amount of people that want to get healthcare. If any of that is true, I think that is incredibly stupid, because some of those people might be in need of some sort of care that their life is dependent on how soon they get it.
I can agree with you that religion has offered people a moral handbook and comfort from their beliefs. But I think you underestimate the amount of people who have suffered from it. To give one major example, anyone that has existed since the founding of the Catholic church has suffered from the set back in scientific advancement.
As soon as the Roman Empire fell, Europe was left in chaos as barbarians raided village after village. The people needed some sort of social stability, but was organized religion the answer? Maybe it was suitable in the beginning to establish those comforts and hopes to the millions that were distraught. Then when the Catholic church came into widespread power; wars occurred in the name of their god, freethinkers were frowned upon and were persecuted, governments were dictated by it, and a few elite benefited from the power and wealth that they gained.
To list some specific atrocities that were caused by the Catholic church; execution of Galileo, the inquisition, the crusades, witch hunts, illiteracy, William Tyndale -an advocate of translating the bible into English and making it available to the public- was strangled then burned, and indulgences - paying money to the church to forgive sin-.
Now it is becoming normal to be moral without religion, and that is thanks to the ideals of democracy taking place in most countries. Therefore people don't necessarily need religion to hold moral and ethical values, the law and societal norms already sets that in place.
I would conclude that scientific advancement is invaluable to the human race, and the catholic church potentially set us back a few centuries. The scenarios that could be imagined with at least another three centuries of free thinking and widespread use of the scientific method are unimaginable.
On the other hand, the many other religions of the world, I can't say that I have a good understanding of their effects on society. Other than Islamic extremism, I would probably say most religions have done good, but maybe not enough to outweigh the damage the Catholic church has caused.
I've read the Nasa article on this, what they said seems like bad news, but this sounds hopeful.
"Although the galaxies will plow into each other, stars inside each galaxy are so far apart that they will not collide with other stars during the encounter. However, the stars will be thrown into different orbits around the new galactic center. Simulations show that our solar system will probably be tossed much farther from the galactic core than it is today."
Imagine if your whole life you were taught that a specific people are evil in every way. You are totally convinced by the people you trust; family, friends, and the society you live in. Then when you meet one one of the "people", and what you were told was wrong, you would feel violated. Your entire life, an elaborate chain of lies and understandings, just falls apart. It's either fight or flight now, continue to believe despite evidence on the contrary, or reject what you were taught and use the evidence to form a new understanding. The latter is tough for some more than others. Fortunately if you were taught the scientific method, you are more likely to be malleable to the logical explanation for things.
Now for people who are against gays that are religious, well faith is a powerful tool. When you believe in something that you fear without any evidence that proves it, then you will be hard pressed to even attempt to look for evidence to disprove it. When you smash the chains of faith, then you might just get closer to accepting the logical.
-Edit- I just realized that I might of misread your statement. Sorry for the unnecessary clarification, it probably is a better answer to the original question. Unless of course the original question was posed by you.
-Edit 2- And I just realized I only needed to look to the right to see the debate creator. Sorry about that, I'm new to this site.
Not unless if you want to cause unnecessary panic and prejudice. I'm sure there is a thorough check to those who become pilots from the government to determine if they are right for the job. On the alps incident, I can't say much for foreign agencies that handle this. The pilot was German, and not of the usual ethnicity that is commonly associated with terrorism. This looks more like a psychological issue rather than an ethnic one.
I actually never said I was in support of the "gay" agenda, nor against. I'm not even liberal, I'm independent. I also said that I'm not religious at all, but I was raised in a Christian environment. I never -purposely- said anything that would mislead a person to treat Christians unfairly, "True Christians," have already made an opposition based on their actions. If you call pointing out; the wars, the lynching, the slavery, the cruel treatment, and the fear mongering -misleading-, then I think you are ignoring human history.
America isn't a Christian country, there is a reason why there is a whole clause about separation of church and state.
I never said that Christians should be silent, I think they should have an equal voice in government as the gays, atheists, straights, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Catholics, whites, blacks, Asians, American-Natives, basically every significant people that make up America.
I do practice what I preach, as the Christian faith is not what I preach. As well, try and stay away from strawmanning others, you do not know whether I value a human life over a social issue.
It's not really the pornography industries job to promote safe sex, their job is to make "entertaining" adult films. Leave that to the non-profits, clinics, and government entities.
I mean, the people we want to target safe sex to are teenagers to adolescents, so they learn it before they make a mistake. I recall a local health clinic coming in to teach us this, not sure what government entity they had to cooperate through though. I would probably assume either the school board or city government.
And through pornography, it really wouldn't be legally speaking okay targeting them, but it could potentially be effective for those underage viewers.
Not at all, but that was how the people in their district wanted to be represented and the reason why they are in office. I mean, conservatism and liberalism are very broad terms. You can be conservative on economics but be liberal on social issues, and I think that might be the opposite for these prolifers. So in a sense, they are probably liberal in the major aspects of the democratic agenda.
I'm not really up to date on the scientific research of homosexuality of other species besides humans, but I can tell you the main difference. A human can ask existential questions; who am I, how did I come to be, what is my purpose. Animals cannot do this, and therefore don't really feel the need to express themselves outside of their primal instincts, which is mostly to reproduce. To put an understanding of the human concept of love is shortsighted and should be open to interpretation always. How I see it, if you love somebody, then love them.
Love scientifically can probably be connected to some body chemistry that occurs in the brain, so if that is so, then who am I to judge by how someones brain works. I think the best thing is to be tolerable and helpful to your fellow man, don't judge them, and belittle them. Because if you do that, then what are you? The leader on moral righteousness? God?
I'm going to take a shot in the dark and assume that you are a follower of the Christian religion, I see that most religious people are staunch homophobes. "Do not judge, or you too will be judged." I'm not religious, but I believe that verse speaks truths on the fair treatment of humans, and if you do follow the bible as your moral handbook, then practice what you preach.
Because we were a people united against a tyrannical Britain, not because we were unified under conservatism or a god. America should be completely secularist, we are a nation of immigrants. All beliefs, all religions, are equal before our laws. God should have nothing to do with government. Want a moral handbook, use the damn saying as a kid, "Treat others as you would want to be treated."
We don't need a god, we don't need conservatives or liberals, we need well informed and educated citizens. To be honest, who do you think put those politicians in their seat in the first place? I don't blame them, everything is corporate run. Go read some bills and you will find a shit ton of riders and corporate handouts. Why, because corporations fund campaigns to get their way, quid pro quo.
Just remember, the government is not controlling you, it's an entity easily changed by any people with a voice. Unfortunately, corporate money is the loudest one.
Let me put it this way. You have the choice in front of you; potentially save innumerable amounts of lives and unjustly treat a minority until stability comes, or do nothing and allow a threat to continue to roam freely without persecution.
Let me put it this way. You have the choice in front of you; potentially save innumerable amounts of lives and unjustly treat a minority until stability comes, or do nothing and allow a threat to continue to roam freely without persecution.
Let me put it this way. You have the choice in front of you; potentially save innumerable amounts of lives and unjustly treat a minority until stability comes, or do nothing and allow a threat to continue to roam freely without persecution.
Let me put it this way. You have the choice in front of you; potentially save innumerable amounts of lives and unjustly treat a minority until stability comes, or do nothing and allow a threat to continue to roam freely without persecution.
Yes, absolutely without a doubt. There is no disputing it as there are 4 men right now in Congress that are Democrats and pro-life.
Congressman Mike McIntyre, NC-07.
Congressman Nick Rahall, WV-03.
Congressman Dan Lipinski, IL-03.
Congressman Collin Peterson, MN-07.
Yeah, that's a pretty standard dictionary definition. Here is the problem though, unjust is subjective. To one society it might be fine while another think it is unjust, it all depends on your views that you were raised on or learned. In the case of the preservation of lives and rights, I see discrimination as an acceptable means for counter terrorism. That can encompass multiple professions; police, FBI, CIA, INTERPOL, NSA, MI6. At one point, all of these agencies have used prejudice to save lives and to protect the interests of their countries. If you agree, then you would falsify the statement that there shouldn't be any discrimination in professions by agreeing with the agencies use of it. It may not be moral, but I see it as necessary.
Well, I would dispute that we weren't created equal, but that might go into religious debates that would be way off topic. But if you read any of my arguments for the use of discrimination as a detective, perhaps you then might reconsider your stance on the topic. If not, feel free to dispute what you see is missing.
Discrimination is a broad term that encompasses the use of all attributes of any single race, and you treat them differently because of it. If you read all my arguments on the right side, I'm sure I have given a stellar reason why there could be a profession that uses it for the greater good in saving lives. Therefore it falsifies the statement by allowing at least one profession the pardoned use of discrimination.
I never said it was impossible. To reiterate, I said it was unlikely we will see anything of that perfect world in our lifetimes. There are too many conflicts of ideals for discrimination to not exist. So surely I persuaded you that in the case of the detective that discrimination is okay in the pursuit of saving lives, correct? Let us visit the statement, "there should not be any discrimination in professions." If you say it is okay for the detective, then it makes that statement false by allowing even a single profession a pardon for discrimination.
